Questions Does God exist?Eternal punishment for the faults of one life: the problem of hell

Does God exist?AtheismThe problem of evil

Eternal punishment for the faults of one life: the problem of hell

The problem of hell

Marilyn McCord Adams 1943 · 2017An everlasting hell, as punishment for faults committed in a limited life, cannot come from a perfectly just God.

See profile

What it claims

The God of the traditional doctrine, at once perfectly just and the author of an eternal hell, does not exist.

Why

Limited wrongs in a finite life do not deserve endless suffering, so a just God could not inflict it.

The same idea through history

Bertrand Russell1927In "Why I Am Not a Christian", Russell sees belief in hell as a serious moral defect: in his view, a truly humane person cannot believe in everlasting punishment.

Marilyn McCord Adams1975"Hell and the God of Justice": Adams examines one by one the principles of justice that should justify an everlasting hell, and finds none that holds.

In short

"Eternal punishment for the faults of one life: the problem of hell" is an argument by Marilyn McCord Adams ("Hell and the God of Justice", 1975, 1975) on the question "Does God exist?" (answer: atheism). Its claim: The God of the traditional doctrine, at once perfectly just and the author of an eternal hell, does not exist. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P5). AskPhilosophy presents 4 objections, 4 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

"Hell and the God of Justice", 1975

Valid with an implicit premise

According to the Christian doctrine most widespread in history, God will condemn some sinners to a hell of total, endless suffering, as punishment for what they did during their lives. The great theologians, such as Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, said that God's perfect justice requires it. The American philosopher Marilyn McCord Adams attacks the doctrine where it thinks itself strongest: justice. A human life is short, the harm one can do in it is limited: what fault could deserve infinite suffering? An honest note: Adams herself was a believer (she became an Episcopal priest) and concluded that eternal hell does not exist, not that God does not exist. Atheists, like Russell before her, draw from it an argument against the God of the traditional doctrine.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.

Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P5, the computer finds a world where God exists, is perfectly just, our faults are finite, and no one is punished eternally: for instance if everyone is saved in the end.

Valid with P5. But P5 is precisely where the argument divides. For an atheist, eternal hell is part of the God presented by the Gospels and tradition (Russell notes this), so the argument targets that God. For a believer like Adams, it is enough to reject P5: God exists, but not eternal hell as it was taught. So the argument does not refute every God: it forces the believer to choose between God's perfect justice and the traditional doctrine of hell. P3 is the most worked-out premise: Adams examines each principle of justice put forward by Anselm and Thomas Aquinas and shows that it is either too weak to justify eternity, or contrary to our ordinary moral judgments.

Analogy. A tyrant makes a billion people unhappy for seventy years. Even the harshest law of retaliation would make him pay seventy billion years: an immense time, but one that ends someday. Eternity never ends. This is Adams's example: even the worst human crime remains a finite quantity.

Objections

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

Anselm of Canterbury (taken up by Thomas Aquinas) 1098 · attacks premise 3

The gravity of a fault depends not only on the act but on the greatness of the one offended. Killing a prince is graver than killing a private citizen. Now God is infinitely great: the slightest sin against him is an infinite offense, which deserves an infinite punishment. In Cur Deus homo, Anselm's disciple admits he should not go against God's will even to save the whole of creation.

Adams replies

Marilyn McCord Adams 1975

This principle of justice is highly implausible. It comes from a feudal society where the death of a noble cost more than that of a serf, which strikes us today as immoral. And our judgments rather go the other way: if a saint slaps a thug, he is more to blame than a thug who slaps a saint, because more was expected of him. Guilt depends mainly on the one who commits the fault, not on the greatness of the victim.

The debate goes on (our summary) Some contemporary defenders of hell have tried to rescue this "status principle" of the victim, such as Paul Kabay ("Is the Status Principle Beyond Salvation?", Sophia, 2005). Other believing philosophers, such as Jonathan Kvanvig (The Problem of Hell, 1993), also find it untenable and look elsewhere for a justification of hell. The debate goes on.

Where the debate stands (our summary)The disagreement is about the victim's "status principle": Adams and Kvanvig find it implausible; others, such as Paul Kabay (2005), defend it against these objections. Open point.

C. S. Lewis (hell "locked on the inside") 1940 · attacks premise 5

Hell is not a punishment God inflicts from outside, it is a choice. In creating free beings, God accepts in advance that he may be refused. The damned are, in a sense, rebels to the end: the doors of hell are locked on the inside. God forces no one: he respects those who do not want him. Lewis also answers that a "transitory" sin seems disproportionate only if we think of eternity as time stretching on endlessly.

Adams replies

Marilyn McCord Adams 1975 · What Adams already granted in 1975

Adams grants this in a note: her argument targets hell conceived as punishment. A hell where God lets some remain separated from him, out of respect for their freedom, may escape the objection from justice, and even the one from love. She does not pursue that line.

Thomas Talbott (universalist) 2013

Choosing hell forever is impossible for a free being. Either the person knows perfectly who God is and what separation from him would be: choosing it anyway would be so absurd that it would no longer be a free choice. Or the person does not know: then God can keep enlightening them, without forcing them. Either way, no one freely and forever rejects the true God.

See the rest of the debate (1)

Jerry Walls (as summarized by Talbott) 1992

Walls grants that no one could choose evil while clearly seeing that God is the source of happiness. But he maintains that some may lock themselves into their illusions, reject a caricature of God, and in the end make a decisive choice of evil that leaves them in hell forever.

The debate goes on (our summary) For the argument, this answer comes at a price: it gives up hell as a punishment inflicted by God, which is precisely the doctrine P5 attributes to God. The debate then moves to another question: can human freedom really resist God forever?

Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: can human freedom resist God forever? Lewis and Walls think so; Talbott does not. Adams notes that hell conceived this way may escape her objection, which targets hell as punishment.

Annihilationism (or "conditional immortality") attacks premise 5

The wicked will not suffer eternally: after the judgment, they will simply cease to exist. So there is no infinite suffering, and the objection from disproportion falls. Several theologians defend this reading of the biblical texts, which also speak of "destruction".

Adams replies

Jonathan Kvanvig 2003

It is not as mild as one thinks. In our ordinary ideas about punishment, the death penalty is far more severe than life imprisonment. Without the images of flames and torture, final annihilation thus raises at least as many problems of justice as the traditional hell.

The debate goes on (our summary) Annihilationists answer that a just, limited punishment followed by the end of existence remains proportionate, whereas endless conscious suffering never is. For the argument, annihilationism in any case amounts to rejecting P5: it gives up the traditional doctrine.

Where the debate stands (our summary)Annihilationism gives up the traditional doctrine of eternal suffering. The disagreement is whether annihilation raises fewer problems of justice: Kvanvig thinks not, annihilationists think so.

Thomas Talbott (Christian universalism) 1999 · attacks premise 5

The argument does not touch God, only a bad doctrine. According to Christian universalism, God's love extends to all persons, and his will to save each one cannot be thwarted forever. In the end, all will be reconciled with God. Talbott defends this notably in The Inescapable Love of God (1999).

Adams replies

C. S. Lewis 1940 · What Lewis had already objected to universalism

I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully "All will be saved". But my reason asks: without their will, or with it? Without their will is a contradiction, for giving oneself to God is the supremely voluntary act. With their will: and what if they will not give in?

The debate goes on (our summary) Talbott answers with the dilemma seen above: an eternal refusal, in full knowledge, would no longer be a free choice. On the atheist side, it is noted that universalism was condemned by a council in 553 and remains a minority view: the believer can escape the argument, but at the cost of the doctrine most churches have taught.

Where the debate stands (our summary)Core disagreement: can God save everyone without taking away their freedom? Talbott holds that he can; Lewis wished to believe it but doubted it. Universalism remains a minority view in the Christian tradition.

What today's voices say

Defend it

Alex O'ConnorFinds it plausible that nobody could justly be sent to an eternal hell of torment, though he notes the 'infinite punishment for a finite crime' objection can be answered.

Lawrence KraussHe argues that a God who punishes unbelief forever and demands worship is petty, neither tolerant nor merciful.

Matt DillahuntyA God who sends people to hell for honestly not being convinced would be "a moral monster".

In the same family · The problem of evil

Evil is not a thing: privation and free willAugustine of Hippo